PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1880 OF 2010

(Arising out of order dated 02.06.2010 passed in C.C.No.419/2007 by District Commission, Satna)

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,

ROAD NO.2, PREM VIHAR COLONY,

DISTRICT-SATNA (M.P.) … APPELLANT.

Versus

1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED, 101/102 D.M.TOWER,

12/1, RACE COURSE ROAD,

NARAYAN KOTHI SQUARE, INDORE (M.P.)

2. UTI BANK, TIWARI TOWER,

REWA ROAD, SATNA (M.P.)

3. MR.VAIBHAV HANDA, FRANCHISE AGENT,

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

MUKHTYAR GANJ, BARDIHA CHOWK,

NEAR D.M.BAGHEL HOUSE, SATNA (M.P.)

4. BRANCH MANAGER, AXIS BANK LTD.

(UTI BANK) VIJAY NAGAR, NEAR SAYAJI HOTEL,

INDORE (M.P.) …. RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI : PRESIDING MEMBER

HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for appellant.

Shri C. S. Lamba, learned counsel for the respondent no.1-insurance company.

None for the respondent no. 2 to 4.

O R D E R

(Passed On 30.11.2022)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:

This is an appeal by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 02.06.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

-2-

Commission, Satna (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.419/2007 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant in his complaint are that he had given a cheque no.078591 dated 08.09.2006 for a sum of Rs.14,355/- of UTI Bank towards insurance premium to opposite party-insurance company for the insurance coverage of his vehicle Tata Indica w.e.f. 28.09.2006 to 27.09.2007. It is alleged that on 05.10.2006 complainant’s car met with an accident and he filed a claim with the insurance company along with requisite documents and the insurance company appointed a surveyor in the matter. However, the insurance company denied the claim on the ground that since the cheque was dishonoured, the policy could not be issued. It is further submitted that in the cheque book, the name of the complainant is Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, whereas in the bank’s computer the name is feed as Rajendra Agrawal. He therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties seeking relief.

3. The opposite party –insurance company resisted the complaint taking defence that since the cheque towards insurance premium was dishonored therefore, the policy could not be issued. The complainant is therefore not entitled to any claim.

-3-

4. The opposite party no.2 UTI (Axis Bank)’s defence was that since there was difference in the signature on the cheque and specimen signature, the cheque was returned to the depositor insurance company.

5. The opposite party no.4 UTI Bank’s defense was that it was unnecessarily made a party to the complaint.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the impugned order of District Commission is patently perverse and devoid of merits in the eyes of law and hence it is liable to be dismissed. The District Commission did not consider the fact that the complainant and the opposite parties, bank and insurance company are under a contractual liability as bank is liable to clear the cheque, if there is enough balance and t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document